In a welcome decision to employers, the Third Circuit decided last week, for the first time, that an employer’s mere “honest belief” that an employee misused FMLA leave is sufficient to defeat a retaliation claim. As an employee claiming retaliation for using protected FMLA leave must prove that the very exercise of that right was a determinative factor in the employer’s decision to take adverse action against her, in other words that there was retaliatory intent, it is good news for employers that they can now successfully defend against claims simply by showing they believed in good faith that the employee misused what was otherwise protected leave. While the Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have reached similar decisions, this was previously an open issue in the Third Circuit.

Also of note, the Third Circuit rejected plaintiff’s claim that his employer failed to accommodate his disability under the ADA. While the FMLA (unlike the ADA and most state law analogues) does not require employers to provide reasonable accommodation, a request for leave under the FMLA may under certain circumstances now qualify as a request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

In Capps v. Mondelez Global, LLC, plaintiff Capps was a long-time employee who suffered from arthritic pain in his legs and hips. He requested and received intermittent FMLA leave over a period of many years for that same condition, and every six months plaintiff’s physician re-certified him for that leave. During his employment, Capps was arrested - and briefly incarcerated - for drunk driving. Months later, the employer learned of his arrest. According to the company’s records, the employee had requested and taken FMLA leave on days when he had been arrested, incarcerated, or appearing in court for the offense. The company accordingly terminated Capps’ employment for misusing FMLA leave.

The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on Capps’ FMLA retaliation claims “because the record evidence showed that Mondelez based its decision to terminate Capps’ employment on an honest belief that Capps misused that leave.” The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiff could not show that Mondelez’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Capps’ employment - its reasonable belief that Capps misused and was dishonest about his use of FMLA leave - was pretextual, and that retaliation was the real cause for termination. The Third Circuit summed it up nicely: “Where an employer provides evidence that the reason for the adverse employment action taken by the employer was an honest belief that the employee was misusing FMLA leave, that is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge.”

While retaliation claims are typically fact-intensive, the Third Circuit’s decision offers employers a lighter standard when defending against such claims. Employers now need only show they have a good faith, “honest,” basis for their adverse employment decision: they need not prove they were actually correct in their determination. The heavy burden employers commonly face in obtaining summary judgment on FMLA retaliation claims (and perhaps under other statutes) may now have been lightened by Capps.

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.

Contact Greenberg Traurig, LLP - Florham Park Office

Choose Area of Practice Area of Practice is requiredFirst Name First Name is requiredLast Name Last Name is requiredE-mail Address E-mail Address is requiredInvalid E-mail Address

Describe Your Legal Matter

0/1000 characters

Describe Your Legal Matter is required

Country Country is requiredZip CodeZip Code is requiredInvalid Zip CodeCity/Town/Locality City/Town/Locality is requiredState/Province/DistrictState/Province/District is requiredPhone Number Phone Number is requiredInvalid Phone Number Preferred Contact Method

By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

CONSUMER WEBSITES

The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by the use of this site. The attorney listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. Your access of/to and use of this site is subject to additional Supplemental Terms.